We welcome article submissions from experts in the areas of coal, mining,
shipping, etc.
To Submit your article please click here.
|
|
|
Monday, 01 April 19
FORCE MAJEURE SUCCESS NOT A SEA CHANGE - BALTIC EXCHANGE
 KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
It is difficult to successfully argue that contractual performance has been prevented or delayed by force majeure. This is in part because English courts or arbitration tribunals will interpret these clauses strictly and narrowly against the party seeking to rely on them.
Recent decisions, including Triple Point Technology v PTT (2017) and Seadrill Ghana v Tullow Ghana (2018), are evidence of this approach. However, Sucden Middle-East, represented by Nick Fisher of HFW, has recently relied successfully on such a clause in the Commercial Court, on appeal from arbitration.
The case, Sucden Middle-East v Yagci Denizcilik Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi, “The Mv Muammer Yagci”, involved a shipment of sugar to Algeria on the Sugar Charter Party 1999 form. The facts found by the arbitral tribunal were that when the cargo arrived in Algeria, the cargo-receivers submitted false import documents to local customs authorities. The local customs responded by seizing the cargo, using powers under customs laws and regulations.
A delay to discharging the cargo of four and a half months ensued. Sucden, as charterers, claimed this delay fell within the exceptions to laytime running under clause 28. Owners disagreed. At first instance, the arbitral tribunal agreed with owners.
Charterers appealed to the Commercial Court. Permission to bring the appeal was given on the basis that the question of law was one of general public importance, as it related to a standard form contract in wide commercial usage.
The judgement
The question before the Commercial Court was: “Where a cargo is seized by the local customs authorities at the discharge port causing a delay to discharge, is the time so lost caused by ‘government interferences’ within the meaning of clause 28 of the Sugar Charter Party 1999 form?” Clause 28 reads:
“Strikes and Force Majeure
In the event that whilst at or off the loading place or discharging place the loading and/or discharging of the vessel is prevented or delayed by any of the following occurrences: strikes, riots, civil commotions, lockouts of men, accidents and/or breakdowns on railways, stoppages on railway and/or river and/or canal by ice or frost, mechanical breakdowns at mechanical loading plants, government interferences, vessel being inoperative or rendered inoperative due to terms and conditions of employment of the Officers and Crew, time so lost shall not count as laytime on demurrage or detention…”
In deciding whether a force majeure event had occurred, the Court focused on the construction of “government interferences”. It was fairly straightforward to establish that a government entity acting in a sovereign capacity was involved, but owners argued that the government being involved was not enough and that there had to be “interferences”. In reaching its decision that there had been no interference, the tribunal had considered it a key point that seizure was an “ordinary” action. The Court rejected this conclusion. It held that the seizure of the cargo was not routine and did fall within the meaning of “interferences”. Seizure is a significant exercise of executive power and therefore could not be regarded as “ordinary”. Suspected or predictable consequences are not the same as ordinary actions (such as the inspection of the cargo by a government surveyor): “In the usual course of things, cargo is not seized and property rights are not invaded in that way.” The very fact that false documents were involved showed that the circumstances were not routine.
The Court emphasised that it was of “real importance” that its conclusion on the language was not difficult to apply, nor did it in any way offend commercial common sense.
The owners’ causation argument was also dismissed, as it was held that the seizure caused the delay, even if the submission of false documents caused the seizure.
Further detail
In allowing the appeal, the Court still maintained the strict and narrow approach to force majeure, stressing that “the answer given to the question is only a narrow ‘yes’. It is ‘yes’ where the circumstances are as in the present case. The answer does not address all of the circumstances that may come within or fall outside clause 28. The answer is concerned only with the seizure of a cargo and with that seizure by a customs authority that is a State revenue authority acting in a sovereign capacity”.
This judgment gives some welcome publicly-available guidance on the interpretation of a force majeure clause in a standard form widely used in sugar trading. While the charterers were successfully able to rely on the force majeure clause in this case, it does not signal a change in the strict and narrow approach typically adopted by the English courts.
Source: Baltic Exchange
If you believe an article violates your rights or the rights of others, please contact us.
|
|
Saturday, 23 January 21
GOVT PLANNING TO OPEN UP COAL MARKETING TO STREAMLINE PROCESS - THE INDIAN EXPRESS
The government is considering opening up coal marketing, Coal Secretary Anil Kumar Jain said on Thursday. Currently, production by Coal India is al ...
Thursday, 21 January 21
LNG MARKET RIDING HIGH, BUT WILL THE GAINS CONTINUE? - DREWRY
The LNG market started 2021 on a high note with Asian spot prices crossing $30 per MMBtu while LNG shipping rates recorded a high $350k per day due ...
Thursday, 21 January 21
CHINA'S SPOT THERMAL COAL PRICES REFRESH RECORD HIGH - MYSTEEL
Despite the moderate rebound in temperatures across most regions of China after late December’s deep-freeze, thermal coal prices in the count ...
Wednesday, 20 January 21
CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK IN HEBEI HAS LIMITED IMPACT ON CHINA'S STEEL INDUSTRY - FITCH RATINGS
The recent Covid-19 outbreak in the steel producing hub Hebei will not have material impact on China’s steel industry, Fitch Ratings says.
...
Wednesday, 20 January 21
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
While 2020 is finally behind us, its negative impacts are still hovering over the shipping market. That being said, it is still too early to even s ...
|
|
|
Showing 661 to 665 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- The University of Queensland
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Australian Coal Association
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Deloitte Consulting - India
|
| |
| |
|
